Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32809, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32809 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form
Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories
(Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set
One)
Tentative
The motions are denied as moot.
The requests for sanctions are granted in
part.
Background
On October 6, 2022,
Rie Hoshina Frost Ward (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Julio Leon-Yepez
(“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 25 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of
an automobile accident occurring on August 18, 2021. On May 16, 2023, Defendant
filed his answer.
In another case
arising out of the same accident, Case No. 22STCV06144, Plaintiff Rafaela
Ramirez filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 100 on February
18, 2022.
The two cases were related by
Court order on April 26, 2024.
In this matter, on May 25, 2023, Plaintiff
served Defendant with written discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set
One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).
(Brown Decls., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exhs. A.) Defendant
did not timely serve responses. (Id.,
¶¶ 6-7.)
On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed these
motions to compel. Plaintiff also seeks
sanctions.
Defendant served the overdue discovery
responses on April 9, 2024. (Lajevardi Decl.,
¶¶ 1-3 & Exh. A.) Defendant filed
oppositions on April 11, 2024.
Legal
Standard
A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days
after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom
interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the
propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
(Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to
compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id.,
§ 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement
be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a
timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
When a party moves to compel initial responses to
interrogatories, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd.
(c).)
A party must respond to requests for production of
documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260,
subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed
does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order
compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There
is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and
confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who
fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
When a party moves
to compel initial responses to requests for production, “the court shall impose
a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against
any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion],
unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.300, subd. (c).)
In Chapter 7
of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010,
subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include
“[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in
misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in
the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
anyone as a result of that conduct.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the
trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc.,
supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)
Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and]
substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses …
the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to
respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off
calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,”
the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially
unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions
under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel
discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to
the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving
party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)
Discussion
Plaintiff served Defendant with Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for
Production (Set One) on May 25, 2023. (Brown Decls., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exhs. A.) Defendant did not timely serve
responses. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.)
Months later, and only after these
motions were filed, Defendant served discovery responses on April 9, 2024. (Lajevardi Decls., ¶¶ 1-3 & Exh. A.)
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial responses are denied as moot.
Defendant concedes that sanctions are appropriate
and asks that they be imposed on counsel only, as the responses were delayed as
a result of the conduct of counsel.
(Lajevardi Decls., ¶ 5.) Given
the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses,
and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions,
the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $502.50, calculated
based on 1.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $295
per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Brown
Decls., ¶ 7, 8.)
Conclusion
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories (Set One).
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set One).
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Demand
for Production of Documents (Set One).
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s requests for
sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Defendant’s counsel of record Martinez,
Dieterich & Zarcone Legal Group to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil
Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,507.50 ($502.50 per
motion, multiplied by three motions) within 30 days nof notice.
Moving party is
ORDERED to give notice.